The Comparitive Case Study
The Comparative case study
Democracy as an ideology first originated in Athens, 5th Century BC; it sought to develop a government that met the needs of its people by listening to the people. It has since become the most sought after concept in political science, with popularity rising worldwide from the 1970’s through waves of post-war democratization. The increase in democratic regimes has led to complexity in defining the concept, variations in how it is applied, and differing levels of success. The vast range of democracies which now exist have developed the need for comparison and the ability to analyse which factors determine success. Interest in defining democracy accumulated on a large scale and lead to a huge number of varying approaches. The original basic concept of ‘rule by the people for the people’ has now expanded into bands of sub definitions examples including electoral democracy, illiberal and liberal democracy, delegative democracy, reflective democracy.
Thus, the exploration of defining democracy can be split into two main approaches; procedural definitions which focus on how the regime is organised and the processes by which representation, accountability and legitimacy are assured. Substantive definitions of democracy deal also with the goal and effectiveness of the regime, the extent to which the will of the people might be served in a more purposive sense. (Caramani, 2011, p. 88)
When defining democracies in order to compare their effectiveness a procedural approach refers to the organisation of a state and the processes used to maintain democracy. Joseph Schumpeter offered the most simplistic and widely used definition, sticking to a strictly procedural definition of democracy, ‘free competition for a free vote’. A substantive one however, envisages the achievement of public good hence to be a successful democracy one must strive to achieve this through objectives, not procedure alone. The substantive approach thus has a clearly
Democracy as an ideology first originated in Athens, 5th Century BC; it sought to develop a government that met the needs of its people by listening to the people. It has since become the most sought after concept in political science, with popularity rising worldwide from the 1970’s through waves of post-war democratization. The increase in democratic regimes has led to complexity in defining the concept, variations in how it is applied, and differing levels of success. The vast range of democracies which now exist have developed the need for comparison and the ability to analyse which factors determine success. Interest in defining democracy accumulated on a large scale and lead to a huge number of varying approaches. The original basic concept of ‘rule by the people for the people’ has now expanded into bands of sub definitions examples including electoral democracy, illiberal and liberal democracy, delegative democracy, reflective democracy.
Thus, the exploration of defining democracy can be split into two main approaches; procedural definitions which focus on how the regime is organised and the processes by which representation, accountability and legitimacy are assured. Substantive definitions of democracy deal also with the goal and effectiveness of the regime, the extent to which the will of the people might be served in a more purposive sense. (Caramani, 2011, p. 88)
When defining democracies in order to compare their effectiveness a procedural approach refers to the organisation of a state and the processes used to maintain democracy. Joseph Schumpeter offered the most simplistic and widely used definition, sticking to a strictly procedural definition of democracy, ‘free competition for a free vote’. A substantive one however, envisages the achievement of public good hence to be a successful democracy one must strive to achieve this through objectives, not procedure alone. The substantive approach thus has a clearly